In re Wood

140 U.S. 370, 11 S. Ct. 942, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2471
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 11, 1891·No. No. 1581·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Concurring opinion of

Mr. Justice Field.

I concur in the judgment in this case, but not in all the-views expressed in the opinion. I adhere -to what I said ■ in my dissent in the case of Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 405, 409, that there is nothing in the late amendments to the Constitution, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth, which requires that colored citizens shall be summoned on juries, [371]*371grand or petit, in order to secure to persons of their race justice and equality in the administration of the law; and, further, that the manner in which, jurors to serve in . the state courts shall be selected, and the qualifications they shall possess, are matters entirely of state regulation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Wood, 140 U.S. 370, 11 S. Ct. 942, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2471 (1891).

140 U.S. 370 (In re Wood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Doss v. Lindsley
53 F. Supp. 427 (E.D. Illinois, 1944)
Cascade Town Co. v. Empire Water & Power Co.
181 F. 1011 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, 1910)
Snyder v. Colorado Gold Dredging Co.
181 F. 62 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)
Decker v. Williams
73 F. 308 (D. Alaska, 1896)
Reynolds v. Burns
141 U.S. 117 (Supreme Court, 1891)